Re: A new member and a new conlang sketch

John Vertical wrote:
>... 3) may have some questionable vowel aanalysis (eg. why the decided that
>Finnish has /e 9 o/ is beyond me, common analyses speak of either hi-mid /e
>2 o/ or lo-mid /E 9 O/ thruout) - but if you've settled on your vowels, this
>shouldn't concern you.
Yes, I'm happy with the vowels.


>If you want a wider look on the world's languages' phonologies, there's this
>index I've been working on:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tropylium/Shtuff
>It's still very unfinished beyond Africa, but you should still be able to
>get a picture...
Thanks! I put it up on my agenda to analyze it, before I generating more roots
in Raikudu. (particularly the Afro-Asiatic phylum)


>>/v/ seems to be the most European phoneme in my inventory. But if you exclude
>>all Indo-European languages in Europe, what will then be the cross-linguistic
>>most average phoneme inventory?
>
>I've seen /p t k s h m n r l w j/ + maybe /f tS/ quoted. If that's too few
>obstruents for you, AIUI /b d S ?/ are some of the most common "additions",
>and after those, /dZ g N/.
Hmm, I'm considering to add /N/. Btw, I have heard that of /p b t d k g/ the
two consonants most likely to be absent is /p g/, because of acoustic reasons.
Is it possible that /b/ is in fact more common than /p/, but that linguists
often transcribe it as /p/ anyway when the language lacks voicing distinction?
Well, it might not be important, since it seems like both are common enough
for inclusion in my language. (maybe I add /q/ too...)


>BTW, any particular reason to have /i/ = [i ~ I], but no similar situation
>with /u/?
By accident/ignorance? :)


>Thorn for /ts/... interesting. Feels kinda backwards to me, but I suppose
>from a synchronic viewpoint it's fine. If you switched to <sh ch>, I'd also
>switch to <c> for /ts/, but if you like thorn, why not...
>
>John Vertical
Well, new plans :) <þ š č j ' ŋ y> for /ts S tS dZ ? N @/ .. or maybe <c>
instead of <þ>, but I simply doesn't like the look of some words with <c> for
/ts/.. I don't know why. The look is okay if <c> represents /S/ in my eyes.


Cheers
/ Veoler

Reply